The Gravediggers of France at the Château d’Itter, 1943-•1945 Kim Munholland Professor of History Emeritus, University of Minnesota Article Number: 5 Date of publication:August 15, 2013 Follow this and additional works at: http://purl.umn.edu/148010 Citation: Kim Munholland, The Gravediggers of France at the Château d’Itter 1943-­­1945. Journal of Opinions, Ideas, and Essays. August 15, 2013. Article #5. Available at http://purl.umn.edu/148010. Submissions will be accepted from any member of the University of Minnesota community. Access will be free and open to all. The Gravediggers of France at the Château d’Itter, 1943-•45 Kim Munholland Professor of History, Emeritus University of Minnesota Abstract: Discussion of responsibility for the defeat of France in 1940 has been a matter of controversy and debate among historians of France. Given the importance of this event in French history, which brought the downfall of the Third Republic, the establishment of the collaborationist Vichy Regime and Occupation by the Germans, these debates have led to accusations of incompetence and even treason. One author has called these individuals the “gravediggers” of France. A number of these individuals were arrested by the Germans in 1943 and assigned to a prison, the Château d’Itter (or Schloss Itter) in annexed Austria from 1943-45. This imprisonment compelled those whom some see as the guilty parties to confront one another and assess their own roles in the conduct of French politics leading up to the defeat and armistice. The paper revisits the way these individuals assessed their roles in the immediate aftermath of defeat, going back to the atmosphere at the time and a reexamination of responsibilities through the eyes of the participants. The article concludes that the severe condemnation of these individuals as “gravediggers” is excessive, reflecting the anger and frustration felt in the immediate aftermath of defeat. The Gravediggers of France at the Château d’Itter, 1943-45 However historians may continue to argue about the true causes for the fall of France in 1940, they all agree that this was an “event that resonated throughout the world”.1 Recriminations and searches for guilty parties began immediately after the event. One of the best known and thoughtful of these early works is Marc Bloch’s Strange Defeat: A Statement of Evidence Written in 1940, which analyzed the structural, underlying problems of French society that contributed to the sudden collapse.2 Almost all historians who have confronted France’s collapse in 1940 have given homage to Bloch’s analysis. No less influential at the time of writing during the war were the bitter accusations that the journalist André Géraud (Pertinax) leveled against France’s military and political leaders in The Gravediggers of France: Gamelin, Daladier, Reynaud, Pétain and Laval: Military Defeat, Armistice, Counter-Revolution. Pertinax was less concerned with the long-term causes of defeat than with the immediate and, as he saw it, disastrous choices made by the gravediggers.3 These interpretations have set frameworks for many subsequent analyses of the defeat. While Bloch criticized both the military and political leadership of the later Third Republic, he also focused upon the structural problems: the domestic social divisions, intellectual laziness, particularly in military thinking, and the political rivalries that weakened French society’s ability to resist the external threat.4 The second paradigm, illustrated in Pertinax’s assessment, emphasizes individual responsibilities, the mistakes of the leadership and their errors of judgment during the crisis months that led to France’s humiliation. Others have seen the hand of treason at work in the betrayal of the Third Republic or in the political attacks by anti-republican writers and polemicists on the political right, who prepared the ground for Vichy’s collaboration with Nazi Germany.5 André Simon concluded with a wholesale condemnation, “France was not beaten by Hitler. It was destroyed from within by a Fifth Column with the most powerful connections in the Government, big business, the State administration and the Army.”6 From this perspective, France had fallen by treachery as well as internal rot. Finally, the American diplomat, Anthony Biddle, who witnessed the defeat, sent President Roosevelt a trenchant analysis of the causes of the French collapse a week after the armistice was signed in which he stated, “Events have shown that France was (A) militarily, (B) diplomatically, and (C) morally unprepared,”7 Subsequently, these have been the three areas where historians have judged France’s failure in 1940.8 Vichy also had its list of guilty parties who were blamed for the defeat. In his radio address of 20 June 1940 Marshal Pétain deplored France’s “decadence” or “decline” in language that would be echoed by others, including some historians not necessarily sympathetic to Vichy,9 when he declared that defeat resulted from France being, “Less strong than twenty-two years ago; we also had fewer friends, not enough children, not enough weapons, and not enough allies. These are the causes of our defeat.”10 In making his judgment on the Third Republic and its ills Pétain became the founder of the ‘decadence thesis’ to explain the Third Republic’s demise and to justify his National Revolution as a necessary remedy for France. In 1942 Marshal Pétain’s government hauled some of the Third Republic’s leaders before a court of inquiry at Riom, accusing Edouard Daladier, Léon Blum and General Maurice Gamelin, of taking France into a war for which it was not prepared. When Blum and Daladier (Gamelin remained silent) made a mockery of the accusations, the Riom trial was suspended, but the accused remained in prison under Vichy. Eventually they were deported to Germany, along with a few supporters of Marshal Pétain who had fallen from favor and had become suspect to the German occupiers. These deportations brought a number of them to a rather fantastic prison, the Château d’Itter in the Tyrol where they confronted each other under the eyes of their Nazi jailers. Here they confronted a recent disaster and assessed their own roles in that event and the events leading up to it, becoming witnesses to history. THE SETTING The Château, rebuilt in the late nineteenth century in a false Renaissance style, provided a setting that was suited for staging a comic opera, and at times the behavior of Itter’s prisoners and their circumstances had elements of comedy as well as seriousness.11 This imprisonment compelled these presumed gravediggers to confront one another in an isolated, “magic mountain” setting above the fray taking place on the plains below. From 1943 to their liberation in 1945 these notables had time to reflect upon their actions, to keep diaries, to prepare their memoirs, and to engage in often quite lively discussions over responsibilities for the defeat and the armistice that opened the way to the establishment of the Vichy regime under Marshal Pétain’s leadership. Hanging over the prisoners was a question of their fates. The condition of their imprisonment was comfortable for wartime, but would they survive and be liberated, or would they be executed at the end? Life among the French notables at Itter may be found in the memoirs and diaries written at the time, which provide the basis for a re- creation of an encounter among those whom several historians since have looked upon as having been responsible for, or contributed to, the French defeat in 1940 that led to the Vichy regime.12 Revisiting the immediate reactions of French leadership to the defeat and demise of the Third Republic also enables an assessment of their responses to the broader problem of how Château d’Itter whose 19th century guests included Peter Tchaikovsky credits Foto Rudisch-Muller France confronted the general crisis of democracy in Europe between the wars. For those who blame the political leadership, we have Paul Reynaud and Edouard Daladier, the next to last two Prime Ministers of the Third Republic whose rivalry is often cited as evidence of a political system that had become dysfunctional and unable to respond effectively to the Nazi threat. For those who hold the military responsible for the defeat, there is Maurice Gamelin, who lost control of the battle, and Maxime Weygand, his successor, who sought an armistice that opened the way to Vichy. For those who criticize the diplomats for the contradictions and failures of French diplomacy in the 1930s, why not Daladier, the “man of Munich,” or the dean of French ambassadors, François-Poncet, the French representative in Berlin from 1931-38 and then ambassador to Mussolini’s Italy from 1938-1940? For those who denounce the Popular Front for raising the specter of revolution and dividing the country, we have Léon Jouhaux, secretary of the most powerful French labor union, Conféderation Général du Travail (CGT), and champion of the working class, specially during the politically charged days of the 1930s. Those who criticize the abandonment Popular Front reforms during the last months of peace from 1938-9, again we have Daladier and Reynaud, rivals who nevertheless combined to issue decree-laws that modified the Popular Front’s forty-hour work week as a way of stimulating the economy and stepping up production in French war industries but embittered the working class in the process. For those who detect the sinister hand of various leagues threatening the republic with a right- wing revolution, if not a French brand of fascism, who better than Colonel de La Rocque, the head of the Croix-de-Feu and then the Parti Social Français (PSF)? And for the conditional loyalty—or disloyalty-- of the military to the republic, we return to Weygand and the aging Marshal Pétain, still at Vichy but on everyone’s mind at Itter.